Either Way, the Same Result

Gary Rosenblatt writes that “a leading Zionist think tank [the Re’ut Institute, which offers pro bono strategic analysis to the Israeli government] is now suggesting that . . . Israel’s ‘positions and policies regarding the status of the Palestinian Authority and security arrangements are gradually becoming irrelevant.’”

Palestinian leaders, for a variety of reasons, are coming to believe that they have the upper hand and are no longer dependent on Israeli cooperation.

Some Palestinians say . . . it would be best to dissolve [the Palestinian Authority] and force Israel to deal with the resulting economic and political chaos on the West Bank. . . . Other Palestinians say that Israel needs and wants a two-state solution more than they do to avoid a one-state scenario where Israel would gradually lose its Jewish majority . . . .

[Re’ut Institute President Gidi] Grinstein believes that if and when Israel and the Palestinian Authority sign a formal peace plan, the potential for major violence would be heightened, not diminished, because the militant opponents of the agreement would unleash their forces to undermine the agreement. . . .

“Resistance groups always mobilize better than the moderates,” says Grinstein, who fears that the U.S. is pushing Israel and the Palestinians toward “a moment of truth” at a time of “highly alarming circumstances.” . . .

But David Makovsky, a Mideast expert who is senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, cautions against putting the brakes on the current peace talks. . . .  His concern is that if the talks were to end . . . Hamas would take over the West Bank, paving the way for untold bloodshed and a one-state solution. . . .

So:  Makovsky says the peace process needs to continue, to avoid a war.  Grinstein says that if the peace process succeeds, there will be a war.  Remind me again why this is called a “peace process.”